/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5570243

did /x/ send you?

>>5570243
If this is correct then the writer of flatland was retarded in the sense of essentially working on a Dimension 2.5

>>5570243
bump for interest and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be understanding

what do you mean when you say "is an infinite perspective of" ?

>>5570544
Can to it's initial being only, but infinitely, give observation to (x) D.

Looks like someones watched the 10 dimensions.

So does this mean 1st dimension has an infinite perspective of the 0'th dimension, which is actually the 10th dimension?

I think the dimensions loop on a macrocosmic scale but fuck I'm pulling this out of my ass.

>>5570638
I havnt, im not sure, 0 is simply as all things, the first simply being the basis for all things to come to pass

The fuck am I reading.

Troll thread?

if an anime was watching infantile cartoons and the telly was drawn from the side then the characters would be literally 1-dimensional

HOW DOES YOUR THEORY ACCOUNT FOR THIS???

>>5570795
Made me wut

They'd be multiple 1 D's, also, not even flatscreens are 2D

>>5570812
lol wp, although 'anime' is a subset of reality right?

A Dimension isn't a "place" where objects exist, it's a state in how the objects are perceived. You can't have dimensions-in-dimensions, that's just /x/ trash.

>>5570818
A: String Theory

B: A 'Dimension' is
>Google wiki quote
"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

So.... just about everything you said there was wrong- unless ofc you are using what is said which is not saying that there is a 'dimension-in-a-dimension' it's simply how they 'comprehend' each other

is this alright or is it bullthinking?

our planet is round, therefore infinite in 2D, you can walk as far as you want in any direction but you'll never meet the end

so, i am guessing the universe isn't infinite, it's just infinite in 3D and we'll therefore never find an end. It should be somewhat like the inside of a ball, though that doesn't cover it right

>>5570989

It's like being on the outside of a balloon that's being blown up. Spacetime is the rubber of the balloon, and it's expansion is why the galaxies are moving away from us.

>>5570993
yeah, i know. But i was talking about dimensions
do you think the universe is infinite in 3D, as i said, or am i just talking nonsense?

>>5571003
Well I think the point is as it circles through it's given broader confines by the nature of one or a combination of the dimensions being of the most susceptible to the various ways existence is able to expand

I have no idea what OP is rambling about, but it's kind of coincidental that I was thinking about spacial dimensions just last night.

I was thinking about a line... This is the typical example of a 1D universe. Movement only in two directions. But then I thought about the fact that a line can exist in 2D or 3D or n-D, as well. And then I thought that a line doesn't really make sense without those other dimensions.

For example, say you exist as a 1D creature on that line. I could explain to you (myself being 3D) that your whole universe is just a line within my 3D space. I could say "your universe passes through the points [5, 7, 12] and [3, 6, 1] in my 3D space, and those two points are enough to define your line.

But is it possible for that 1D universe to exist in isolation? Is it possible to have just a line, as opposed to a line in 2D space or 3D space or n-D space? I don't think that it is.

If not, then there must be an infinite number of dimensions... each n-dimensional space must exist within an n+1-dimensional space.

>>5572227
yeah but this is insinuating that we're getting our 'reality' from somewhere outside the 4th D

>backwards it play
Protip

>>5570993

Shittiest analogy ever.

Spacetime expansion does not carry the galaxies away from us. That terrible analogy is what confuses so many people about cosmological expansion.

Disproof by contradicion:
We shall start with the axioms you have set up and the following: "I exist in the third dimension."


-If I can see ALL of the 2nd by being in the 3rd, by your logic I must also be able to see all of the 1st, because I can regard myself as being able to see everything that someone in the 2nd dimension can see.
-Similarly, I can also see all of the 1st and thus all of the zeroth.
-Further, this allows me to see all of the 4th dimension, which allows me, in turn, to see everything that exists in the 3rd dimension at once.
-But this is not the case, I have a limited view of the third.
-Ergo, this is shitty spam.
-Get the fuck off sci.

>>5572439
Yes, although "shadows" in the physical sense do not exist in 2d, becuase obviously photons of light are 3d.

In maths the n-dimentional "shadows" are called "projections"

even our understanding of the second dimension is misled, as light travels in 3 dimensions.

>>5570243
>is an infinite perspective of

So what does this phrase mean?
I mean, it seems everything you are saying turns on this one phrase, but you didn't explain it.

So explain it.

>>5572438
Err... No perspective as it regards to senses can be define as more of a 3.5 or 4D-1D
Also "in" is a pathetically inane term for the example, "as" can only be said to be somewhat better as the the series as demonstrated would progress much more quickly than our brains could account for.
You're axising your principles on/to irrelevant demonstrations to/of the post

You're implying that our senses define reality and its progression, an even worse tier than the post- and even at that can sense sub atomic.
>clearly you're bad at life

>>5572525
>
>>5570623

>>5570243
I almost see how one could redefine what the 'self' is with this, it's like a laymans quasi string theory

nah man, 1stD is 0D folded in on itself
2ndD is 1stD folded in on itself
3rdD is 2ndD folded in on itself

you get where i'm going with this

>>5573042
Well yeah to say that 'That's the only thing it could percieve and thus....' basically what you said but more as it pertains to maintaining and producing the next/needed in relation to whats being produced as the by product of them- that being the various constructs of perception in the universe

faggots first immaginarium?

>>5570243
So what is 0 D? Our processing unit that's unimaginable to how we compose things?

>captcha uesvan Engineering

ITT: faggots don't know what a dimension is.

>>5574938
A dimension is gaining its state from somewhere, that's the point of the theorem

>pic related

>>5570795
The 1.5th Dimension

>>5570243
time is relative to the first three

>>5575419
All post perspectives have attributes of the previous ones yes

>>5575419
Sorry, all the intermittent determiners have attributes of the previous ones

i have no idea what anyone is talking about. a dimension is just defined as the cardinality of a basis in a vector space.

>>5570243
X being a 1.X (D)
Y being all previous D's in order listed it would look like X+1 Dimension=Y+1 Dimension?

>>5575578
HOW DOES IT GAIN THAT IS THE POINT OF THE THREAD

>>5575585
>sense defining reality

>>5575598
well that would give the structure its 'mass' so to speak

bump

>>5570243
talked about this a few days ago.

i'll recap


0 dimension is a point. indivisible (cannot divide by 0)
1st dimension is a line, infinite amount of points parallel to each other.(infinite of the previous dimension)
2nd length/height, infinite lines stacked. (infinite of the previous dimension)
3rd length/height/depth. infinite 2d stacked
4th length/height/depth/energy-time, (time is just a perception of energy change)
5th length/height/depth/energy-time/parallel-universes (infinite different energy probabilities)

>>5575730
mmmm muh parallel-universes

>>5575730
Stacking 1 D & 2 D still results in them being 1 D & 2 D, they have no depth, if they are infinitely small then are never relative to eachother & as such cant even be stacked.

'stack' a third dimension on another 3rd D, seriously, you'll get a black hole or something.

Seriously this is not your conventional Dimensional definition
>
>>5572827

>>5575764
you dont stack them on top of eachother. beside eahother. we perceive the transition from one to the next as movement/energy-shift/time. how else would the 4th dimension work?

>>5572312
But that's not correct

1D is singularity, it can move in on itself or wrap beyond itself

OP's trying to say that that 'line' is subject to something that is beyond all encompassed sets and is infinitely exposed to it by the nature of it's observation of whats above the 4th D

>>5575764
trying to sound scientific

adds "or something"

trying to sound scientific

"conventional... definition"

>>5575773
How can beside be said when the space is being derived a 5th D, it doesnt hold together!

Question on your 1D is that a birdseye view or what?

>>5575784
it dosnt matter, trying to look at dimensions outside of our own its like trying to describe the out side of a building from a small room in the basement with no lights or windows

>>5575784
our existance is on any of the dimensions, it all depends on your perspective.

for example. the smallest point (for a while at least) was the atom, the 0 dimension, now these atoms will string together in molecules, 1st dimension. these molecules form together to create mass 3rd dimension. this mass has energy changes (time), 4th dimension. and so on

>>5575778
>black hole is not a thing
>the fourth dimension is actually scientific

Accuracy is the point of the game is it not? If you know you're not accurate then why not say? Disillusioning other people for your own arrogance is pretty weak

....& like dafuq?

>>5575795
accuracy is impossible to achieve.

it all depends on your tools in the moment. never perfect because tools will always get better, not worse.

>>5575790
Go ahead and feel the walls, that's a horrible metaphor

>>5575793
>Atom always being the smallest particle
>composed of smaller particles
=.= .... people like you...

Body of knowledge kiddo, it's there for a reason- No what the theorem is trying to say is that information is only just information until it can be derived by something beyond its premise, just like the rest of reality that it requires multiple comparisons on the same function to have an accurate system of functioning and with those systems as they are can our physicist & mathmaticians reverse engineer get the functioning scenario and make tests that mostly come out true all because that's how those things work

>pic related, its no doubt how you to think of physics ;}

>>5575806
says my metaphor is bad. does not give a better example.

refutes my atom metaphor when i admit that the atom was only the "smallest particle" for a small amount of time until it was replaced with electrons/nutrons/protons which have been replaced with quirks which have been replaced with strings

>>5575801
How are you existing then? If 'accuracy' is 'impossible' to achieve mm?

Does everything look blurry to you? maybe a even a little out of focus? Perhaps an altered perspective on what is and how it is is a constant disillusionment to what you think are legitament achievements but in the scheme of what a pair of lines on your finger are composed of literally but some flimsy unbased and unpalatable design?

>>5575806
also

>Body of knowledge kiddo, it's there for a reason- No what the theorem is trying to say is that information is only just information until it can be derived by something beyond its premise, just like the rest of reality that it requires multiple comparisons on the same function to have an accurate system of functioning and with those systems as they are can our physicist & mathmaticians reverse engineer get the functioning scenario and make tests that mostly come out true all because that's how those things work

wut?

>>5570775
No this isn't a troll thread you dumb sack of shit. It actually makes alot of sense and is a great observation and also isn't that complex once thought about for a second.

>>5575813
A: Not yours.
B: Feel the walls.

C: It was never not so it was simply not understood to be not so.

At the time it was quite astounding
>pic related

>>5575815
our eyes are tools we use, they can see a limited spectrum of light.

micro-scopes our upgrades.
electron micro scopes are upgrades too.

So happy about this post. Exactly what i was looking for
consider this, a construct begins at 0 dimensions. Then it progresses from matter of itself to matter brought together with life. A plant for example, life with no conciousness. After another cycle, that life carries on to grow into a 2 dimentional form of life. An animal, life with subconciousness. Another cycle passes, human, life with conciousness. The next cycle carries on to 4th dimentional existance and infinitely?

>>5575819
>Paraphrase
"Something is only it until it is seen to be more than it is by something that results from it and only can be so as it results from the same standard" -but even at that does it result in a further applicable

>>5575829
>Something is only it until it is seen to be more than it is by something that results from it and only can be so as it results from the same standard"


wtf am i reading?

i think you might be talking about Schrodinger's cat but that is a different thread.

>>5575824
That's somewhat of a metaphorical standpoint of what's trying to be said in >>5575806 >>557582 , and yes, existance has always derived from itself to further itself, it's of a question to what extents has it managed? The question being of what/why/how are what/why/how folding in on themselves- but we can really only feel the walls ;]p

>>5575821
feel the walls of the small room in a bigger room in a bigger room to tell the out side of a yet bigger room.... makes sense.

understanding is the limit of being human. we need to take steps from one level of understanding to the next. we cannot simply leap into the domain of god (seeing how it really works).
the atom for all practical purposes was the smallest, indivisible, point at that time, and science benefited from that.

>>5575834
Im trying to explain perspective and, essentially, how it's relivant to it's enviroment interms of decerning actuallity and how that can be assumed to be a natural habitation of reality- IE: Proving itself to exist - as events progress

>>5575846
well... i know i'll sound like a dick. but you're doing a shitty job at explaining.
use a easy metaphor or something.

if something could prove it exists would it not then see the futility of everything

>>5575841
>Humans arn't sentient

ishyddt

Err.. well you can see it in 'reverse' or the negative so to speak was what I was intending

Some have on fewer 'knowledges' than we have, it is simple enough for anyone to say I am of everything and as such everything in part and achieve an omnipotence from that- but that's not what being talked about.

Yes, to know such a thing was possible, very- did it create from the time unitainable goals, extremely- were those confounded eventually? Well shazam as we sit at our subatomically microwave powered chat boxes *cough* electrons *cough*

>>5575839
It is. Its something ive been thinking about and wanted to see what anyone looking at something so similar had to say